The Judicature Acts 1873-75

The Judicature Acts 1873-75 rationalised the position. They created one system of courts by amalgamating the common law courts and the court of equity to form the Supreme Court of Judicature which would administer common law and equity.

The Supreme Court of Judicature consists of the High Court divided into divisions known as the Queen's Bench Division, Chancery Division, and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division (re-named the Family Division in 1970 and the work reassigned); the Court of Appeal; and, since the Supreme Court Act 1981, the Crown Court. Each Division exercises both legal and equitable jurisdiction. Thus any issue can be adjudicated in any Division; and any point of law or equity can be raised and determined in any Division; but, for the sake of administrative convenience, cases are allocated to the Divisions according to their general subject-matter. Thus the court "is now not a Court of Law or a Court of Equity, it is a Court of complete jurisdiction." (Pugh v Heath (1882), per Lord Cairns.)

It was forseen that a court which applied the rules both of common law and of equity would face a conflict where the common law rules would produce one result, and equity another. Section 25 of the Judicature Act 1873 provided that if there was any conflict between these principles, then equity was to prevail. However, this did not fuse the principles of common law and equity, which still remain as separate bodies of rules. "The two streams have met and still run in the same channel, but their waters do not mix" (Maitland).

Task 2. Review the text.

NEW REMEDIES

In recent times the courts have used their equitable jurisdiction to develop new remedies:

Mareva Injunctions

In 1975 the Court of Appeal recognised the Mareva injunction for the first time. This is a court order freezing the assets of a party to an action or stopping that party moving the assets out of the country.

In Mareva v International Bulkcarriers [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509, a shipowner let the 'Mareva' to a foreign charterer, with payment half monthly in advance. The charterer defaulted on a payment. The shipowner found out that the charterers had money in an English bank and sought an injunction freezing the account. It was held that an order would be granted to stop the charterers from moving the money abroad before the case was heard. Normally the application will be ex parte, which means that one party applies without giving notice to the other side for if the other party did have notice, they could move the assets.

In The Due Process of Law (1980) Lord Denning described the Mareva injunction as "The greatest piece of judicial law reform in my time".

Anton Piller Orders

In 1974 the High Court started to grant what later became known as Anton Piller orders. This is an order to a defendant to allow the plaintiff on to the defendant's premises to inspect, copy or remove documents or other objects relating to the plaintiff's property. The aim is to stop the defendant removing or destroying vital evidence. The defendant may refuse entry, but such action would be regarded as contempt of court, for which the defendant could be sent to prison. Once again it is an ex parte application. The use of such orders was confirmed in the following case.

In Anton Piller v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55, the plaintiffs made electrical equipment and employed the defendants as their agent in the UK. They suspected that he was selling their technical drawings to competitors and so applied for an order. The court held that an ex parte mandatory injunction would be granted, to the effect that the plaintiff could enter the defendant's premises and inspect relevant documents.

These orders have been used for breach of copyright, passing off and matrimonial disputes.

Task 3 . Read & comprehend the text.

⇐ Предыдущая891011121314151617Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: